Absolutely Unacceptable

Time is reporting that the McCain campaign believes that it's unimportant that Sarah Palin do media interviews, that people do not care if she does them, and is laying the groundwork for a process in which she won't:

According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. According to Wallace -- in an appearance I did with her this morning on Joe Scarborough's show -- the American people will learn all they need to know (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads.

This is absolutely unacceptable, and we need to make the point as strongly as possible. This is a candidate for the second-highest office in the country, one that most people know little to nothing about. There's no way the American people will ever get a reasonable understanding of her ability to step in as Commander In Chief without a process of open questions and answers. There's no way we will get answers about the many questions over her record if there is no forum in which she can be expected to provide answers.

Again: this is not a minor office. There is a very real possibility that John McCain will not serve out his term in office, should he reach the Presidency. The very idea that we could wind up with a President who has never been through a normal campaign process should just plain be unacceptable.

It's happened once before, with Gerald Ford, and it took a national scandal and two resignations for that to happen. In addition, Ford's appointment required confirmation by majority vote of both houses of Congress, which at least constitutes a reasonable, if unusual, vetting process. This is not that circumstance.

We are in a normal election process with two months to go before we vote. We should not, as a nation, even consider placing someone in a position of immediate succession to the Presidency who has never been through a normal series of open exchanges with the media and with voters. The very idea redefines reckless endangerment of the nation. The word of a few campaign officials within one of the two parties is NOT sufficient.

This is not about Sarah Palin. It's not about Republicans. I would feel exactly the same if Obama had chosen someone obscure as his nominee and was reportedly planning to stonewall the media. I'm not saying that Palin has anything to hide -- but acting this way certainly makes it appear that she does. I'm not saying she can't handle the sorts of interviews there should be -- but acting this way certainly makes it appear that she cannot.

I truly hope that this is a case of one McCain campaign official saying the wrong thing. I hope that they wouldn't even consider such a course of action. This is utterly lacking in "honor", by whatever definition one chooses. This is not putting America First. It's certainly not Politics As Usual, at least -- no one previously would have had the audacity to suggest such a thing.

Senator McCain promised last night in his speech that: "my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability." Unless he means that new standard to be that it will be even less transparent and accountable than the current Bush Administration, this is not the way to embark on that goal.

Transparency starts at the top. This is anything but.

And it is absolutely unacceptable.

Tags: journalism, Media, Nicole Wallace, Sarah Palin (all tags)



Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Bullshit.  They had better make her available.  This is just an attempt the extend the "mean media is picking on her" meme.

Will most people be able to recognize this as a stupid ploy?  I hope so.

by fogiv 2008-09-05 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Utter nonsense there miles. Refusing to pander to ONE outlet of infotainment while more then willingly going on any other actual news program or holding press conferences or even doing town hall types of venues.is simply not the same as going into seclusion so someone seeking an elective office can avoid showing what a pathertic choice was made in selecting that person.

by zerosumgame 2008-09-05 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

I disagree, personally.  Our candidates have many places to go to get softball questions.  The republicans really only have one, Fox news.

Miles is dead on here.  We need to get busy supporting our candidate in a positive manner.  We're falling into their trap with diaries like this one.

by phillyandcheese 2008-09-05 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

This is dangerous. Don't ever buy the republican spin that the "media" is biased in our favor!

The media has been trying to destroy Obama since February - as soon as it became clear he could in fact win. They were promoting Obama and bashing Hillary before that because they assumed that she WOULD win, and so they tried to build up resentments that would make her easier to defeat in November.

There is ONE liberal-leaning show on ONE mainstream cable channel - and we all know Olbermann isn't exactly popular round these parts. The rest are completely in the tank for McCain. Maddow getting a show is another baby step in the right direction, but still, two shows versus the entirety of the rest of four channels, is hardly even.

by sab39 2008-09-05 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

What's dangerous is that we're wasting time on stuff like this while McCain is walking all over us.

by phillyandcheese 2008-09-05 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

not just Obama, they worked hard to re-demonize HRC and every other dem candidate

by zerosumgame 2008-09-06 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Perhaps the reason you think that is because you and Miles are the same person.

Tell your other nine sockpuppets hello.

by Jordache 2008-09-05 11:46AM | 0 recs
You post made me think,

"Sarah Palin is bull** with lipstick."

by verdastelo 2008-09-05 02:12PM | 0 recs
Add to the title

"Sarah Palin won't talk to reporters." "Sarah Palin won't answer questions"

by kevin22262 2008-09-05 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Add to the title

As angry as I am about this -- and I'm pretty obviously angry -- I'm holding out hope that this is one McCain-campaign official and not the final position of the campaign. I'm also a little suspicious that it could be a trap (though so far we've seen a lot of things called traps that haven't been).

I hope they'll reverse themselves. That they're even floating it is unacceptable.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-05 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Add to the title

Actually, I hope they keep her under wraps and are open about being secretive with her.  It will only hurt their credibility with moderates and independents, and we need all of those we can get.

by emsprater 2008-09-05 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Add to the title

Wouldn't that be great? Then while we compare McCain to Bush, we then compare Sarah Palin to Dick Cheney.

by skohayes 2008-09-05 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Gosh, it's odd how all she'll be doing is reading scripted lines in front of adoring crowds.

Nothing spontaneous, no answering questions, no dealing with the media...nothing but a well-polished, rehearsed, scripted facade.

Why, it almost sounds like a...a...celebrity!!

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-09-05 07:08AM | 0 recs
Beautiful move

They're spinning the fact that the media has been "unfairly attacking" her so they can "legitimately" avoid contact with the press.

Slick, beautiful move.  Evil as all hell, but it's smooth.

Who needs Sarah Palin when the idea of Sarah Palin is doing the job?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-09-05 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Beautiful move

It's not working, though -- from the ABC News poll:

Overall, do you think the news coverage of Palin has been fair or unfair?

Fair 50%

Unfair 41%

You can't use perceived unfair media coverage as the smokescreen when most people perceive it to be fair.

Also, the proper response to unfair coverage is to take the opportunity to get your message out in your own words.

If they want to play this game, our job is to make sure it plays only to their base, not to independents and moderates.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-05 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

As bad as the traditional media is, I'm am fairly certain they won't let this stand. The tradmed could care less about telling the whole truth, but if you make them feel like you are restricting their access, well, they tend to take it personally.

If the story becomes "Palin won't answer questions" or "Palin avoids media", that is bad for the McSame campaign.

And don't think for a second that if the Media doesn't call out this childish behavior on their own that Obama won't, which will then turn it into a story.

One just has to look at Obama's comments yesterday re: Community Organizing to see that not only will he respond quickly to pathetic reich wing attacks, but he does it in a way that makes his opponents look even more foolish then they already looked.

by John in Chicago 2008-09-05 07:15AM | 0 recs
It's why

the media feeding frenzy over the Bristol non-story was so stupid.  It gives them juice for their "the liberal media is agin us" narrative and provides the perfect excuse to keep her away from all but friendly, Fox News types.  If they successfully sell the idea that the media was 'viciously' 'smearing' her with the Trig rumors, people actually won't care if she doesn't go on like CNN.  She'll be on Fox, I'm sure, and maybe some soft shit on The View or Diane Sawyer or whatever.  But from their point of view there's no upside to sending her into some lion's den of thorny policy questions if they don't think they need to.

How can Democrats counter?  I'm not sure.  Sending Biden to the media means dick, because everybody knows Biden sweats cameras and attention.  Call her out on it directly?  Maybe, but it might reinforce the Democrats-and-the-media-are-in-it-togeth er meme.

I say hammer her on her out-of-the-mainstream positions on issues, like abortion, energy, evolution, censorship, and the like.  Ask her exactly what she plans to do about Georgia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc.  (Of course, problem is, that leaves us arguing issues and them arguing character.  And while I'll take Obama's character over theirs any day, middle America's fuzzy on policies and loves itself some good old fashioned character.)

What to do, what to do.  It's gonna be an exciting fall.

by Koan 2008-09-05 07:18AM | 0 recs
That's the answer!

Smoke her out of her hole with stories she can't look like she's hiding from.  

by GRO 2008-09-05 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: It's why

I say hammer her on her out-of-the-mainstream positions on issues, like abortion, energy, evolution, censorship, and the like.  

Her energy positions are pretty mainstream popular. The others, you are basically advocating that Obama re-start the '90's cultural war?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-05 09:18AM | 0 recs
Maybe you didn't notice

We won the culture war.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-05 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: It's why

Didn't she reignite that war with her speech?

by fogiv 2008-09-05 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: It's why

you are basically advocating that Obama re-start the '90's cultural war?

Well, 'culture war' to me implies a certain tone-deafness in terms of how you go about it.  I don't want Obama going all fiery to the pulpit like Pat Buchanan c.1992 and prophesying the ruin of the country should Palin and her wild-eyed cohorts take power.  But I think pointing out that Palin represents an ideology that seeks to change the status quo with regards to abortion, science teaching in schools, and ANWR could be an effective strategy.

The 'culture wars' led to certain negotiated treaties.  Palin and her ilk want to undo those treaties and take us back to Reagan (although we can't say 'Reagan,' of course).  Overturning Roe would be radical.  Putting creationism back in schools would be radical.  She's the one who wants to restart the culture wars.

Could work.

by Koan 2008-09-05 10:11AM | 0 recs
should start a counting clock

all the minutes palin refuses to take questions from the american people

by TarHeel 2008-09-05 07:19AM | 0 recs
It is only acceptable

if the American people accept it.  Palin the puppet will have to come out of her box and answer questions on her own - if we insist that she does.  If people will elect a woman based on 18 months as a governor and a 36 minute speech of no substance, then I suppose they get the government they deserve.

by activatedbybush 2008-09-05 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

This will blow up in their faces.  Palin's popularity is high right now, but this-- along with the litany of scandals already plaguing her-- will make it clear that she is a phony, that she talks the talk but does not walk the walk.  And it will completely neuter her as the "pit bull."

My guess is they'll set her up with pre-vetted softball interviews whenever possible.

by JK47 2008-09-05 07:27AM | 0 recs
It's just stalling

They have Palin in with the Bush administration handlers and probably Dana Perino getting crash courses in the important talking points.  She's not ready to talk to reporters now, but she's not stupid; she will gradually become ready to talk to the press, but they need time to get her to that point.

She's a talented lady; she will be ready... to answer questions.  Lead the country?  I'm not so sure.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-05 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Looks like it's possible the RNC can't even get its scripts straight.  

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/21 3806.php

The Green Screen?  Walter Reed.  Um, not the hospital, the middle school.  Epic fail.

If that's what they are doing at the RNC, they're in serious trouble.  

(God, I hope so.)

by trustno1 2008-09-05 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

One of two things is true:

1) The RNC/McCain campaign/etc is extremely... and I mean extremely... clever and Machiavellian. They've done amazing message control, telling which pundits to laud the Palin choice, which to express concern, which to blast it; they staged Penny Noonan's open mike, set up Ben Stein's meltdown, and they've gotten their plants into polls, just to make sure the Democrats underestimate and misunderstand Palin.

2) The RNC/McCain campaign/etc are blundering around making mistakes and rolling the dice in a huge way.

I don't see them having enough message discipline to manage #1, so I'm going with #2. I think they're a chaotic mess right now. The base is fired up, but past that, I don't think they really have a clue what they're doing.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-05 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

I admit, there is a part of me that is distincly paranoid about it really being #1.  (See my handle, it's more than just an X-Files ref.)

 I think the  underestimation is a real problem, from what I see across the Internets.  GOPers are very good at playing the media (hence this diary, obviously.)  I think the calls to stay on message are warranted, and, more importantly, if the media misses this one, well, save us all.  Nice diary.  Rec if I could.  :-)

by trustno1 2008-09-05 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

I'm giving them a lot of credit for message control, but not that much. Why? Because if they could do that much message control they could've kept Bush's approval rating higher than it is.

Plus, I think if their message control is that good, we've already lost. Won't matter if we stay on message; if they can manage a conspiracy that would take dozens if not hundreds of people and make it all work, they'll be able to handle fixing some voting machines.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-05 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Is anyone seeing this shit on the news now?  She and McSame are having a rally in WI, and she's just re-reading chunks of her convention speech right off the page.


by fogiv 2008-09-05 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

McSame's on now, doing the exact same thing.

by fogiv 2008-09-05 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

This is bizarre. I'm not sure what they think they're going to accomplish... this is frankly rather insulting to the people who bothered to come out.

And WI? Really? If Obama loses WI this election is long since over. I do see that they might think they have some inroads in the rural/exurban population with Palin that they didn't before, but really, WI's conservatives were already on board.

I don't see polling moving in WI, I don't see this is a viable way for them to make Obama play defense. I suppose it's close to MN, and the friendly crowds will be friendly, but really, I'm just not seeing it.

But, then, they canceled Palin's FL trip, and she has to be somewhere. Doesn't she?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-05 08:58AM | 0 recs
She can play defense in Alaska?

I mean, McCain really shored up those 3 EVs with the pick.  Nobody can deny that.

Anyways, I don't get a play for Wisconsin.  In 2004 they barely went for Kerry, it's true... but I know my home state: they didn't like Kerry very much, and still they voted for him over Bush.  They love Obama and think he's fantastic: they're not going to go for a Bush clone over the dude that blew out the Zorn Arena in Eau Claire.

by Dracomicron 2008-09-05 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: She can play defense in Alaska?

Exactly what I was thinking. If WI is in play, it's over, and I don't see any likelihood at all that WI is or will be in play.

Here's my theory on the FL cancellation, for what it's worth. I think they thought at first they could get her down there, have some big cheering-crowd rallies, then get her out of there. But now, I see the thinking as: whether or not either the "Buchanan supporter" or "Jews For Jesus" lines of questioning have validity, they don't look good and they'll never look good. But what would look worse is having her down there and not answering any questions about either. So they're going to cut their losses and just not make the attempt at all.

Some reporter in Florida may wind up asking McCain some very difficult questions, though, when he gets down there.

I strongly suspect that they're going to hope to pull Florida out based on local effort and TV ads. I think they've taken what should've been a nearly sure thing and either put it in play or actually lost it. It's a very bad fumble.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-05 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

This will not work the media will be pounding on the door until they respond. I predict this will backfire.

by canadian 2008-09-05 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Well, I'll go out on a tree and predict you are wrong.

They'll go on doing this for a week or 10 days, and then pick and choose where she goes... softly.

Look, the traditional media no longer has the gatekeeper situation they used to.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-09-05 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

I disagree. I know you believe the Palin pick is a masterstroke, Jerome, but what real evidence is there to back up any assertion that her popularity stretches beyond the hardcore reich wing base?

Already, the ABC poll is showing that the public is no longer buying the pathetic "media unfair to poor lil Palin" meme.

She enjoys a healthy approval rating, but that is only because she is by and large an unknown quantity.

If the GOP decides to keep her tucked away, then it will be the Obama camp and the media that define her. If that's what happens, it will be a net plus for Obama.

While the Palin pick is helping energize the GOP base, in the eyes of moderates she is am extremist, and you can bet that Obama and co. will be hammering that perception home in the coming days.

Of course everything is going to depend on GOTV, and while Palin has energized the GOP base, she has also energized the Dem base which was, in my opinion, starting to rest on our laurels a bit.

by John in Chicago 2008-09-05 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Palin came off as, depending on your ideological bent, as either a bomb thrower or a small-minded, mean-spirited bully.  Either way, you can't pretend to be a shrinking violet if that's your image.

Maybe she's just trying to ban herself?

by Jordache 2008-09-05 11:53AM | 0 recs
That's it!

Maybe she's just trying to ban herself?

IRL Sarah Palin is actually rankles!

by John in Chicago 2008-09-05 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

You think the Indies will give her a pass by using scripted speeches and giving soft interviews when so much is still so unknown about her?

The GOP has anointed her their "superstar", people will demand to know more about her before they give their vote to her as the VP.

Questions regarding foreign policy, her legal troubles, her and husbands involvement in AIC, abstinence as the only form of contraception, teaching creationism in school, etc.

Her instant rise in GOP has peaked intense curiosity and in some ways have put the GOP in an awkward position, because she isn't ready to answer intense questions, they have to protect her.

They are milking all the donations they can from their base, before they risk her saying something that will enforce the meme that she isn't ready.

HRC would never duck an interview.

by hootie4170 2008-09-05 12:28PM | 0 recs
No way Palin will pull it off...

...this rose garden strategy's already backfiring.

Main reason: there is no rose garden! Even many GOP'ers will demand accountability.

The talk show hosts will deviate from the canned questions. (It's only going to take one or two of those episodes for it all to implode; and implode it will.)

She's (quickly) going to be humiliated in her own state. It's already happening, as of tonight! The Alaska State Legislature's starting to issue subpoenas in the "troopergate" matters, and I'm sure Palin's already on the short list for that.

They've already painted themselves into a corner...and the paint's just drying as we write this.

Sure, there'll be the typical in-the-tank, so-called journalists out there...at places like Fox...but even the moderates...including some of the moderate Republicans...like Gergen...are already calling her and McCain and Rove out on this.

And, we're just gettin' started...

by bobswern 2008-09-05 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Joe Biden is coming.  :-)

by Christy1947 2008-09-05 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable
Exactly. And by his few comments on Palin it's apparent that he will avoid the personal and stick to policy. He'll entrance; she'll babble.
by mikeinsf 2008-09-05 09:08AM | 0 recs
Sounds pretty transparant to me

Like invisible. We can't let them get away with this gimmick. This is unprecedented, either they make her available or we stay on the media to embarrass the hell out of them while we heckle them through our resources.

by netgui68 2008-09-05 09:02AM | 0 recs
Courage is, as courage does?

I'll give her a few points for not hiding her families' unfortunate plight. She brought them forth in full view of the nation, when most of us had no intention of making an issue of those matters.

I can't say the same for the McLameduck, Jr. campaign...She's willing to take the chance, but he isn't??? Says tons about his decision making (or lack thereof), and confidence (or lack thereof) in his choice.

I think she'll speak; brevity or naivity, notwithstanding... To not do so, is at their own peril. The only "exploitation" I see, is from within the McCain and Repug usury of a family, at any expense.

"Say it, bloviate it, and pray it long and loud enough, it's gotta' come true for the "righteous".

by bullshipper 2008-09-05 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Courage is, as courage does?

And, it's early...bane of the insomniac.
Please allow me to correct my speling airs, and add addendum.

I.E.: "I think she'll speak; bravery, bluster, brevity, and naivety, notwithstanding."

I/we wish the family the best of luck in their health and happiness (and privacy as a family).

I/we despise the ideals, hackneyed rhetoric/lies, and presumptiveness the puppeteers have foisted upon HER, as a public candidate for public office. If she ain't gonna' speak: it's "Open Season" ala Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudds' famoose "duck season" / "no, it's wabbit season" / "no, it's moose season"...for a "media" we think is better at presenting the "truth", than they have been in recent/distant history.

by bullshipper 2008-09-05 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

They are trying to keep her the focus of attention by doing things like this.  It's slight of hand.  As long as we are busy going ape shit about Palin we are not repeating the attack that has been effective:

John McCain can't help your family because he doesn't understand your struggles.  We were killing Mr. 7 Houses and $500 loafers with that line of attack.  It works.

He is the one at the top of the ticket.  He is the one people will vote for or against.  Don't get off message please.  Ever wonder why these roveian pricks gave us such an easy target in Caribou Barbie?

by lockewasright 2008-09-05 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

While I agree in principle, there are two things here:

1) Obama and the campaign are not off-message. That's by far the most important thing.

2) This is important stuff. The tabloid stuff isn't, and obviously all of Palin's mid-level scandals aren't as important as winning the GE. But the notion that we could wind up with a President who has never been through a full campaign process for any nationally elected office nor gone through consideration by the House and Senate under the 25th Amendment should be deeply troubling.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-09-05 10:54AM | 0 recs
"Who cares?"?!?!?!?!

I'll give you 300,000,000 answers, twit.


by chrisblask 2008-09-05 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Last thing; lest we forget the blood still being spilled in the wake of political banter & bullshit.

I can't believe thinking people are going to let him (j.s.m.) get away with smoozing over the outrage most of us (80%) feel regarding a criminal, illegal, immoral, and detestable war. Yes!!! We LOVE, ADORE, HONOR, and RESPECT ALL of our military, past & present.
And, YES!!! We must find and prosecute the CRIMINALS responsible for ATTACKING (terrorists) us and other peace-seeking nations, and LYING (our own government) to US, our SOLDIERS, and the World.
John (your courageous efforts honored, appreciated, admired, and noted); just don't expect anyone with a (good) conscience, to believe it's "duty or service" to blindly, faithfully, and unknowingly "follow the leader", no matter how egregious his politics, or reasons, might be.
Our brave people are here, and available wherever needed, for the RIGHT & PROPER reasons: to protect "FREEDOM"; NOT the whimsical & politically expedient rhetoric or financial interests of who(m) happens to be in charge @ the moment; as exemplified by the present and murderous situation we have been mired in far too long (or, should NOT have been in the 1st place...)

Using our soldiers & their families, villifying the people that care enough to try and STOP this insanity, and compromising our (former) standing as the LEADERS of the Free World, for political purpose; is repugnant, insulting, and disingenous to any voter on any side of the equation. Opining that the "surge" is the tell-all and defining  rationale for justifying where this atrocity now stands, belies the teachings & logic of our Creator, and humanity, in all aspects.

And yes, if you must know, we have a child that was enjoined by his patriotism, and coerced by means of treachery & exploitation of his naivety, into an unnecessary war, when he was much too young to understand; and, now bears a lifetime of wounds & scars of unnecessary sacrifice, for a cause NOT worthy or conducive to this great country's commitment of life, treasure, and power. He'd still go, as would I, for a WORTHY cause.
Our hearts grieve for ALL that have (and will) lost their precious lives; and for the families that will never know the brave, kind, and loving touch of any soldier, civilian, child or peace-loving resident of Earth involved in the struggle.

"If you're fighting in the Creator's name, make certain He/She's on your side of the matter..."


by bullshipper 2008-09-05 11:10AM | 0 recs
You can't have a rose garden strategy...

...if you don't have a rose garden!

This Palin strategy will not flush. They Rethugs can dance around this all they want, but it's the biggest slippery slope of all when it comes to running for national office.

"I'll get bad media, therefore, I'll make it impossible for them to do their job." That simply doesn't work!

The GOP is going to look very, very stupid in coming days due to this, alone.

If she can't handle the media, and she doesn't give a shit about communicating openly and honestly with the public, she sure as hell is NOT ready to be Vice President of the United States!

Yes, it IS that simple. And, everyone will see this for what it is, too. (Sure, she'll get some sympathy votes for this, but even the majority of her own Party won't tolerate this strategy.)

by bobswern 2008-09-05 11:19AM | 0 recs
getting back on subject of thread

What I was so laboriously trying to get across, was: Blowing smoke up the electorates' collective arse with silly choices (pronounced: Cathartic of the Arctic), and trying to justify the perverse status quo we'd get anyway, if they somehow happen to get elected, will not fly, this time around.

It's almost laffable when the elephants bellow & trumpet their new-found "unity" and "change you can believe in"; yet invariably pull the "ron reagan" (or, in Jules case "9-11") card out of their "loyalty to the failed policies of the past" cuff-linked sleeves when needing an example of cough leadership.

Yeah; like we're gonna' believe "Shoot 1st, Ask For Change Later" John and "Proximity to Putin" Palin are any different than the stale example of Nancy Raygun, Shotgun Dick, & Alfred W. Newman-Bush I & II...

Done for the day; thank you for indulging me.

by bullshipper 2008-09-05 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Smells like another rope a dope.

by Classical Liberal 2008-09-05 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Dear Friend and Classic Liberal.
(I'll never use the term "friend" in the condescending manner the "unified, energized, and scab-worthy" g.o.p. does these days; if, that is what you are alluding to?)

If you have any doubt as to the sincerity and honesty of (any of) my previous comments on this blog, please ask me to my progressive and union face, kind sir/madam, before you cast such aspersions regarding my integrity, if you wouldn't mind?

I have no problem answering the misguided & veiled statement you posed regarding my motives for being here. Though your musing is not in the form of a real questiion, I shall strive to address your concern with due faith and honesty.

Please think your uncertainties over... as myself, my family, and my friends will have no reservations eschewing, and proving wrong, your seemingly self-motivated and non-exigent negativity about my motives in posting my personal (and apologies for the long-winded) worries, opinions, and hopes of a better future for us all, and our progeny.

If you think I'm some kind of plant/shill/bullshitter (kindly look @ my i.d./i.a.)... you're wrong. (Tho, I do understand your paranoia, given the disingenous alacrity of the "pubes". No worries; my creds harken back to the day I argued with my beloved Mom over the "great mistake" that was Ron Reagan. (She now understands that we were "right", and the "right" was wrong...need we go on?)
If you think I'm here to espouse the entitlement and privilege these wonks ('pugs) think they "own"; you're as wrong as it gets.

Please; just study the facts/statements/irony before you challenge the proud and stalwart laymans'/womans' intents that made the "I'll be there when one/anyone needs me/us" institutions we have always strived to be.
I'm (very) proud to be union (33 yrs), Democrat, and American. Let's hope the investment (no, not $dollars$) we make questioning any party's loyalty to America goes to a good end. And, NOT! what the politicians, speculators, squatters, trust funders, wanna-be nepotics, old money, and especially the Republican party; wish to see the working class crumble under the sheer weight of.

Honest-to-a-fault Bullshipper

"The scab is a traitor to his God, his mother, and his class" -- Jack London

by bullshipper 2008-09-05 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

And, I most certainly apologize if your response was aimed at the thread, and not directly to me. (We had some (a lot of) grape with dinner.
We'll be ok; and, you're just fine.

Just so yas know; I'm all/totally for ending the temerity and strateegery that is Dubya Dick; as I'm convinced most of y'all here are, to No-4-Mo John's Waterloo.


by bullshipper 2008-09-05 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

ahhh - I think responses to your comments are indented.  My rope a dope comment as in reguard to the GOP saying they won't be putting Palin in front on the media.

Sorry for the confussion. - lol

Pour another glass.

by Classical Liberal 2008-09-08 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely Unacceptable

Well, there are some good and bad ways to attack this one. The best way is to go after McCain regarding this decision, NOT Palin.
If we go after Palin with stuff like "she can't answer questions" we risk lowering expectations again, so she can go into an interview and be considered brilliant if she pronounces her own name correctly and remembers the names of all fifty states.
But if we take this to McCAIN, it could be a double . . . or even triple whammy. "McCain won't ALLOW Palin to speak for herself." "McCain talks about transparency, but he won't let his VP express her own opinions." "McCain is afraid of his own VPs opinions." "Why doesn't McCain trust his VP?" "McCain won't let her speak for herself, he has to have speechwriters put words into her mouth." "Does McCain respect his VP?"

Played correctly, this line of attack can question McCain's judgment, (why did he pick Palin if he didn't want her to speak?) and McCain's views on women in GENERAL.
What does it say about McCain to select an opinionated woman and then refuse to let her speak for herself? Doesn't that make Palin just a pretty face to parrot McCain talking points? Doesn't Palin deserve MORE than that as the VP nominee?

by EvilAsh 2008-09-05 03:05PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads